United Democratic Nations

[Gdstark]

OK, if that's the definition of hardline then yes, the UDN would certainly oppose any compromise of democracy. Mankind needs to speak for itself. Regarding the "they" who "might put aside their differences to oppose us", I don't get it. What would be an example?

The Warsaw Pact comes to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_pact

Oh, sorry...I meant a current example.

But keep in mind...the degree to which dictators might try and organize to oppose democracy is not a factor in how I form my own principles.

Sorry...what was your main point?

[Gdstark]

Didn't want to come out and say it, but yeah, the Warsaw Pact of the Cold War. OPEC was also used as a means to use oil as a weapon against the West, in the hopes of killing Western support for Israel. In Europe it actually worked to a degree. Virtually any alliance that has formed in the past has been to counteract an upset of the balance of power, including the formation of another opposing alliance.

So pick your side. Democratic or authoritarian. If your choice is not to make the distinction, then you did make a choice...you have decided that democracy is not that important to you. And that's pretty much what we have now with the UN. So if you're not concerned about nuclear proliferation, the buildup of the Chinese military, and all that, then you're right...no need to change.

[Voerdeland]

Didn't want to come out and say it, but yeah, the Warsaw Pact of the Cold War. OPEC was also used as a means to use oil as a weapon against the West, in the hopes of killing Western support for Israel. In Europe it actually worked to a degree. Virtually any alliance that has formed in the past has been to counteract an upset of the balance of power, including the formation of another opposing alliance.

So pick your side. Democratic or authoritarian. If your choice is not to make the distinction, then you did make a choice...you have decided that democracy is not that important to you. And that's pretty much what we have now with the UN. So if you're not concerned about nuclear proliferation, the buildup of the Chinese military, and all that, then you're right...no need to change.

1. I support democracy, but I don't think that we have a right to enforce our system of government upon other nations, or that undemocratic regimes are illegitimate
2. What's wrong with nuclear proliferation?
3. What's wrong with China's growth and development (building a strong military is a part of it)?

[Gdstark]

Your assumption that trade with China would somehow stop because we take a stand in favor of democracy is unfounded. Trade is a capitalist process, not a governmental process. I do not recommend letting relationships deteriorate...to the contrary I prefer a policy of engagement rather than isolationism. Engagement is not contradictory to the adherence of democratic principles.

Oh, but trade is very much governmental. World leaders frequently visit other nations and leaders precisely to increase trade ties and bring down trade barriers. In no world would creating a democratic foreign policy bloc, let alone one that isn't useless, and thus pissing off all the world's authoritarian regimes (which tend to be emerging markets), end up causing anything but a decrease in UDN-dictatorship trade.

You claim that you don't want relations to deteriorate, but you also claim that you can live with insulting China's government. So which is it? Relations will suffer unless the UDN is completely toothless (and its very formation wouldn't go unnoticed).

China needs us as much as we need them. They make the goods, we buy them, trade imbalance not-withstanding. So no, I disagree...even with a UDN, we would have trade with China.

> but you also claim that you can live with insulting China's government

In that instance I was talking about myself, not the UDN.

China is actually a great nation, with great potential. I have no doubt that they will soon be a great democracy. My insults, if any, would be for the dictators alone.

[Gdstark]

Im sure those non-democratic countries would be very happy about UDN, if UDN would set an arms embargon Iran for an example those who would not be members of UDN should not give a **** about it and they could buy all the weapons they want from China and Russia.

And this is different from our current reality how?

[Gdstark]

No. If anything, I would kick out the US, the UK and France. After all, it's not the Chinese who say that the entire world should adopt their system of government.

Never confuse democracy with wise governance. Democracy is simply the POTENTIAL for good governance. And don't assume that powerful democratic nations are necessarily the best example of democracy. A UDN would be as much about improving existing democracies as creating new ones.

[Sawia]

It has atleast limited what those countries (NK, Iran etc.) can buy, and limits countries that can sell them weaponry, well atleast officially.

[Voerdeland]

No. If anything, I would kick out the US, the UK and France. After all, it's not the Chinese who say that the entire world should adopt their system of government.

Never confuse democracy with wise governance. Democracy is simply the POTENTIAL for good governance. And don't assume that powerful democratic nations are necessarily the best example of democracy. A UDN would be as much about improving existing democracies as creating new ones.

Interesting. What do you exactly mean by "improving existing democracies"?

[Gdstark]

I've given this idea a LOT of thought. I even grabbed the URL (it was available) and create a prototype via the website. Check it out...

http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

I'm open to feedback...

gary

Gary, a few questions about your video...

How does revolution in favor of liberty work against world peace? Why should I favor a cause that invalidates individual liberty? You emphasize that democratists favor individual liberty but you decry the quest for individual liberty as an affront to world interests.

How is legitimacy of gov't established by an electoral process, which suggests local self-determinism, but NOT by dictatorship? Obviously, by the very fact that the citizens are not rising against their dictatorship, the population offers tacit support to the dictator. If you doubt this fact, then you doubt the very foundations upon which all democratic societies are based - the social contract. Not every person in a democratic society was asked if they approved of democracy. They were born into it. Therefore, by the very nature of your argument, each person would have to vote to remain in a democracy, lest he be the victim of dictatorship of the majority. And if you acknowledge that a man be free to vote for his participation in a democracy for every generation, then it follows that a man must vote every single moment, lest his future self be the victim of a dictatorship of the past. Given this exercise in reductio ad absurdum, can we say that democracy is somehow more legitimate than a dictatorship?

I have more thoughts, but I have to go. The lady is looking at me impatiently and I won't disappoint her. Please, address those questions and we'll go from there.

I'm having trouble following your points, but I'll try to reply. You said...

Obviously, by the very fact that the citizens are not rising against their dictatorship, the population offers tacit support to the dictator. If you doubt this fact, then you doubt the very foundations upon which all democratic societies are based - the social contract.

I do doubt this. Not rising against a dictator can also be the result of fear...fear that you will be jailed or just "disappear". So I can't follow your logic beyond that.

Not sure if this addresses your point, but as someone who lives in a [representative] democracy, I see very little evidence of people wishing they lived in a dictatorship. On the global level, immigration is almost always from dictatorships to democracies, not the other way around. But again...maybe I'm just missing your point.


can we say that democracy is somehow more legitimate than a dictatorship?

In a democracy the representation is legitimate. In a dictatorship the people have no representation. That's why dictators buy gold toilet seats and such....they aren't accountable to the people. So yes, democracy is a legitimate form of representation, dictatorship is not.

gary

[Gdstark]

When you say "they", are you referring to the people in the totalitarian nation? Or the dictators? In my opinion we need to stop lumping these together.

And for the record, world peace will require the elimination of totalitarian governments. Not the approach being applied to Iraq, but rather the approach we see in places like Egypt and Libya...change centered from within.

gary

But you said revolution was bad for world interests?

Allow me to clarify. In a fully democratic world, revolutions would be through the electoral process, not through the use of arms. In dictatorships...well...just open a newspaper. My point is that dictatorships lead to violent revolutions, which works AGAINST the cause of world peace.

[Gdstark]

When you say "they", are you referring to the people in the totalitarian nation? Or the dictators? In my opinion we need to stop lumping these together.

And for the record, world peace will require the elimination of totalitarian governments. Not the approach being applied to Iraq, but rather the approach we see in places like Egypt and Libya...change centered from within.

gary

As long as the regime/dictator has the support of his army that isnt going to happen.

So what's your prediction for Syria?

[New Freedomstan]

The Warsaw Pact comes to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_pact

Oh, sorry...I meant a current example.

But keep in mind...the degree to which dictators might try and organize to oppose democracy is not a factor in how I form my own principles.

Sorry...what was your main point?

The Shanghai pact, I guess? You do have an odd definition of democracy, since you include Indonesia and Colombia, though.

[Gdstark]

So pick your side. Democratic or authoritarian. If your choice is not to make the distinction, then you did make a choice...you have decided that democracy is not that important to you. And that's pretty much what we have now with the UN. So if you're not concerned about nuclear proliferation, the buildup of the Chinese military, and all that, then you're right...no need to change.

1. I support democracy, but I don't think that we have a right to enforce our system of government upon other nations, or that undemocratic regimes are illegitimate
2. What's wrong with nuclear proliferation?
3. What's wrong with China's growth and development (building a strong military is a part of it)?

1. If the UDN had no standing military and lead ONLY by setting a good example, would you still consider that as imposing on other nations? As for undemocratic regimes being illegitimate, I can't compromise on that one. If the people didn't vote for the government, then the representation is illegitimate. Would you feel more comfortable just calling them unrepresentative of the people?
2. Silly question. As soon as the first terrorist sets off a nuclear bomb in NYC you will understand just how profoundly silly your question is.
3. Nothing so far. But of course if you follow the news you will realize that China is becoming more assertive in its ownership claims of various disputed islands. That has a real potential for working AGAINST the cause of world peace.

[Gdstark]

Never confuse democracy with wise governance. Democracy is simply the POTENTIAL for good governance. And don't assume that powerful democratic nations are necessarily the best example of democracy. A UDN would be as much about improving existing democracies as creating new ones.

Interesting. What do you exactly mean by "improving existing democracies"?

Occasionally nations fall backwards...the internet is censored or freedom of the press is hindered. That must might be cause for expulsion from an organization of democracies. The UDN would serve as a deterrent to undemocratic behavior so long as membership is valued.

[Gdstark]

Oh, sorry...I meant a current example.

But keep in mind...the degree to which dictators might try and organize to oppose democracy is not a factor in how I form my own principles.

Sorry...what was your main point?

The Shanghai pact, I guess? You do have an odd definition of democracy, since you include Indonesia and Colombia, though.

I include Indonesia and Columbia? I'm just an individual. The task of quantifying democracy would fall the the UDN, not me personally.

[Voerdeland]

1. I support democracy, but I don't think that we have a right to enforce our system of government upon other nations, or that undemocratic regimes are illegitimate
2. What's wrong with nuclear proliferation?
3. What's wrong with China's growth and development (building a strong military is a part of it)?

1. If the UDN had no standing military and lead ONLY by setting a good example, would you still consider that as imposing on other nations? As for undemocratic regimes being illegitimate, I can't compromise on that one. If the people didn't vote for the government, then the representation is illegitimate. Would you feel more comfortable just calling them unrepresentative of the people?
2. Silly question. As soon as the first terrorist sets off a nuclear bomb in NYC you will understand just how profoundly silly your question is.
3. Nothing so far. But of course if you follow the news you will realize that China is becoming more assertive in its ownership claims of various disputed islands. That has a real potential for working AGAINST the cause of world peace.

1. Government doesn't have to be responsible before the people in order to be legitimate.
2. Oh, because someone wants to equip terrorists with nuclear weapons. In such case I would oppose it. But here, on August 28, 2011, the only entity that allegedly tries to obtain nuclear weapons is Iran. I don't see anything wrong with it, as regimes much worse than Iran (DPRK or the former nationalist regime of South Africa), unstable governments (Pakistan) and rogue states (Israel or (again) the former regime of SA) have or had WMDs, and HAVEN'T use them.
3. Government of China - unlike the democratic West - doesn't believe in spreading it's ideas by force. When it starts to do so, inform me. Until then, I will consider the PRC's foreign policy much better than the NATO countries' one.

[Threlizdun]

A Union of Democratic Nations would not be sucessful, as almost every nation in the world calims to be democratic.

[EnragedMaldivians]

OK idea in theory, terrible in practice. You can't ignore authoritarian and totalitarian states, much less officially exclude them from an international body on the basis of their form of government. You'll piss them off and create a new opposing power bloc, one which will probably strengthen the very forces you sought to weaken and eliminate.

Let's take an example from recent history: because George W. Bush doesn't know anything about the Middle East, he lumped every predominantly Muslim terrorist organization, regardless of goal or ideology, together under the same label of Islamic terrorism. This meant he treated Hezbollah, a Shi'a group in Lebanon and Syria concerned mostly with Israel, the same as Al-Qaeda, an international Wahhabi network that targets the US and Western Europe. When Dubya saw that Hezbollah happened to be operating in parts of Syria, ruled by the largely secular, ostensibly Sunni, Assad regime, he said "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS," and cut all ties with Syria.

What happened? Syria was isolated, alienated, and in desperation, turned to Iran for an ally. That's right, the mostly Sunni nation of Syria allied itself with the Shi'a theocracy of Iran. As part of that alliance, Syria allowed Iran to funnel resources to the Shi'a group of Hezbollah. By 2006, Hezbollah was strong enough to fight the Israeli military to a standstill. So, by isolating your enemies or perceived enemies, you may force them to team up and ultimately strengthen them, no matter how bitter rivals they are now. War makes strange bedfellows after all.

Off-topic, but...

Assad is Alawite, granted that they are not a mainstream sect of Islam, they are a Shi'ite one.

I agree with your first paragraph though.

[Casta Nal]

A Union of Democratic Nations would not be sucessful, as almost every nation in the world calims to be democratic.

Even North Korea.

[Gdstark]

A Union of Democratic Nations would not be sucessful, as almost every nation in the world calims to be democratic.

So you don't believe democracy can be measured? Are laws difficult to measure? If so, should we give up on laws?

[Gdstark]

A Union of Democratic Nations would not be sucessful, as almost every nation in the world calims to be democratic.

Even North Korea.

That's certainly the most comic example.

Hey, would any of you who are worried about defining democracy be willing to go out on a limb and say "North Korea is not a democracy"? The reality is that you probably do value democracy. All you need to do now is live it. That's the whole point of the United Democratic Nations idea. If somebody has a better idea for increasing world peace, they need to tell everybody.

[Glen-Rhodes]

An exclusive group of democratic nations is pretty antithetical to the purpose of the United Nations. The UN wasn't created to be the democracy club. It was created to foster cooperation between all the states in the world. You can't really do that when you're telling half the world that they're not allowed in your club.

[Gdstark]

An exclusive group of democratic nations is pretty antithetical to the purpose of the United Nations. The UN wasn't created to be the democracy club. It was created to foster cooperation between all the states in the world. You can't really do that when you're telling half the world that they're not allowed in your club.

So you approve of our ambasadors checking their demoratic principles at the door of the UN? There would be no greater dismissal of democracy than to pretend that dictators are legitimate.



> The UN wasn't created to be the democracy club.

Indeed not. It is intentionally designed to ignore democracy. The very word democracy is nowhere in the UN charter.

So here's one for you. Shouldn't the primary goal of our preeminent foreign policy forum be the advancement of world peace? How satisfied are you with what the UN does to achieve this goal? Perhaps we should trust our democratic principles and try a little harder. Call it UN v.2 if you like.

[The Nuclear Fist]

So pick your side.

You're either with us, or against us. Derp.

Democratic or authoritarian.

Not every dictatorship is authoritarian, and there are a few democracies that are quite authoritarian.

nuclear proliferation,

The problem with it being?

the buildup of the Chinese military,

The PRC has every right to build up its military, as any self-respecting nation does. There is nothing alarming about a nation deciding to protect itself.

and all that, then you're right...no need to change.

The status quo is fine. Would I like to see the UN given an organized fighting force, and clamp down on obscene human rights abuses? Yes, but things like that take time, or you end up clusterfucking the geopolitical scene.

[Gdstark]

So pick your side.

You're either with us, or against us. Derp.

Democratic or authoritarian.

Not every dictatorship is authoritarian, and there are a few democracies that are quite authoritarian.

nuclear proliferation,

The problem with it being?

the buildup of the Chinese military,

The PRC has every right to build up its military, as any self-respecting nation does. There is nothing alarming about a nation deciding to protect itself.

and all that, then you're right...no need to change.

The status quo is fine. Would I like to see the UN given an organized fighting force, and clamp down on obscene human rights abuses? Yes, but things like that take time, or you end up clusterfucking the geopolitical scene.

Since you believe that the status quo is fine, I suspect that I cannot convince you.

So other than giving the UN a greater ability to kick butt, you have no other thoughts on how to improve it? How about the security council? France is 20th in nation populations and holds a permanent seat on the powerful Security Council, including veto authority. India is the 2nd most populous nation, the worlds largest democracy, yet has no such position. How would you explain the fairness of this to an Indian citizen?

No, I disagree strongly with you. We can do so much better.